Is it Time Again for Science Diplomacy with Russia?
By Cathy Campbell
As a science diplomacy advocate and a long-time facilitator of U.S.-Russia science cooperation, I frequently ask myself if science diplomacy can help improve relations between the U.S. and Russia. The July 16th meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin provide a timely backdrop to consider this question. Independent of what happens at that meeting, where science most certainly will not be on the agenda, my answer to the question posed is a cautious “yes.”
U.S.-Russia relations are at an all-time low. Ongoing tensions over a range of issues — Syria, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, NATO, Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and U.S. sanctions against Russia — have sown deep distrust. There is little government-to-government cooperation or consultation. Without regular dialogue, it is difficult to imagine how the U.S. and Russia could successfully manage a crisis situation. And the potential for crisis, whether from an accelerating arms race, potential military conflict in third countries, or a cyber attack, is real.
While the current political relationship is tense, relations between scientists still exist but are less active than they were during the last two decades. Between 1991 and roughly 2015, science and technology cooperation grew substantially thanks to sustained political and financial support from both governments, involvement of the philanthropic and non-governmental organizations such as CRDF Global, and a high level of interest from U.S. and Russian scientists. Thousands of scientists collaborated in a wide range of topics, such as health, basic research, and space exploration. In addition to technical exchanges, diplomats and government science policymakers met regularly to advance the bilateral science agenda and address any problems that arose during cooperation. That has changed dramatically.
Today, with a few notable exceptions such as the Space Station and Arctic issues, scientific cooperation, particularly at the government level, is essentially non-existent.
It will take a long time to restore government-to-government relations. The differences are deep and there is a high level of mistrust and anger. But these situations often are the ones in which science diplomacy works best, provided there are sufficient scientific need and interest. The need exists. Many of the challenges both countries face (e.g. health and the environment, fighting terrorism, harnessing the power of new technologies while minimizing the risks) require technical input to address.
Bringing together the best scientific minds can benefit both countries by accelerating the application of science to improve security, foster economic growth and promote the health and well being of citizens.
As global leaders in the production of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. and Russia have a special responsibility to prevent the proliferation of the associated technologies and to minimize the risks of emerging technologies.
It is difficult to say if scientists in the U.S. and Russia remain as interested as they once were in collaborating. Some may have lost interest due to the difficulties (e.g. loss of funding, travel and visa restrictions) and risks of collaborating, or turned their attention to other countries. However, it is likely that the interest remains thanks to the long history of partnership, the well-established relationships established, and the mutual respect for the other’s scientific achievements.
There is a precedent for science diplomacy between the two countries. U.S.-USSR science cooperation during the Cold War is a well-known example of science diplomacy. Connections established through consultations, exchanges, and even some joint research enabled American and Soviet scientists to establish relationships, deepen understanding of each other’s societies, and gain insights into each other’s approach to science and technology. These, in turn, helped to reduce tensions during difficult periods in the bilateral relationship and build a foundation for the very robust agenda of scientific cooperation that developed after 1991.
Most of the early examples of science diplomacy, such as the partnerships between the National Academies of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, took place outside formal government channels. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) should once again take the lead in advancing science diplomacy. On the U.S. side, the National Academies of Sciences and professional scientific societies are well-suited to this role.
Unfortunately, there are few comparable NGOs in Russia particularly after Moscow enacted laws that made it impossible for NGOs — including those funding science in Russia — to operate. Science in Russia today is primarily a government-driven enterprise, with the for-profit sector representing a distant second. So any effort to engage Russia in science diplomacy will have to involve Russian government entities. This may increase the tendency toward politicization. This is always a risk in science diplomacy but fortunately, there are many examples of science diplomats rising above these tendencies to produce results.
Science diplomacy will not fix the broken US-Russia relationship but it can help to build trusted relationships and begin to build a common understanding on important issues. It will not be easy. Scientists in both countries face numerous domestic challenges related to funding, organizational restructuring, changing policies, and regulations, etc. As government support for US-Russia cooperation has waned, scientists in both countries have turned their attention to cooperation with other regions, notably Asia and Europe. Still, the need for scientists to work together remains as important as it was during the last fifty years. We need to overcome the current levels of mistrust, skepticism and hostility. Science diplomacy can help.
Cathy Campbell is a Visiting Scholar at the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy and the former President and CEO of CRDF Global.
